The conclusion in this question is that the content of the news reveals that reporters were affected by their personal biases - and the important premise is that the candidate the reporters voted for (mostly) received much less proportional criticism than did the other candidate. Let's check out our answer choices:
(A) does not get at the heart of any important assumptions in this argument. In particular, even if we negate the assumption indicated by (A), the argument stands. This isn't about overall total criticism but rather the percentage of criticism for each candidate.
(B) gets at something that might have made you uneasy when you originally read this argument - namely the author's assumption that it must be the case if one candidate received more criticism than another that such was due only to biases - assuming effectively that there was no other plausible explanation. This answer choice gets at that, so let's keep it.
(C) is out of scope - the author doesn't pronounce on whether such bias is good or bad (it might be implied, but this is the LSAT so we stick to what's written and that alone).
(D) again is out of scope- we are only concerned with reporters' biases and voting behavior - not the general electorate's voting patterns.
(E) is out of scope *and* it actually would require an assumption that would weaken the conclusion rather than strengthen it, so this is definitely not our answer.
Hence, our correct answer is (B) - any questions?
